1. Field of Invention
The sole purpose pf this invention is to address the problem of maintaining and securing a comfortable grip after extended use. This invention only relates to the gripping end of the hammer or any other striking tool that incorporates the use of only one hand to operate the tool. A uniquely shaped gripping handle would be molded onto gripping end of the shaft. It would be constructed out of any synthetic rubber resin used commonly nowadays for other grips. This grip would offer the most natural and comfortable grip one could obtain on a hammer or other striking tool.
2. Description of Prior Art
Every tradesman, carpenter, contractor, and homeowner can attest to all prior art on hammers and such. Molded handles, rubber handles, and curved handles make up numerous types of striking tools. Much prior art goes into well thought details of the grip alone. However, the idea of manipulating the users hand to be the most relaxed, yet stable and secure grip seems to be missed. Only the shape of an inverted and elliptical cone can obtain that. Prior art such as U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,600 by Egeland et al, U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,387 by Leake, U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,273 by Pollak, U.S. Pat. No. 4,548,248 by Riemann, U.S. Pat. No. 5,588,343 by Rust et al all seem to manipulate the users hand in every conceivable shape except the shape one would have keeping the striking motion the least strenuous. Whereas, the comfort e-z grip is the farthest users hand can be extended still maintaining a secure grip. Any other wider range of the hand being extended would result in loose of grip or wider and impractical grip. My invention accomplishes this only shape to obtain the most comfortable grip. U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,273 by Pollack portrays a tapered handle almost to the likes of mine on the bottom of the handle; it is virtually flat on the top. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,273 figure one side view. The top of the handle in Figure one side view is practically parallel with the shaft of the hammer inside it. Area by which the users thumb and index finger seems to decrease with the top of the handle, actually bending downwards. This is in sharp contrast to the shape of my handle. My grip on figure one side view shows an area of the handle increasing as you see it rise to where the thumb and index finger rest on the handle. Any wider grip would be impractical for obvious reasons; clumsiness, size, and lose of grip. I do not believe U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,273 total intent for uniquness was for its grip but rather for its 130-degree bend where the shaft meets the handle change arm motion when using. It still doesn""t extend the hand out far enough for a more comfortable grip. As for U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,600 figure one, item twenty five is virtually flat with no resemblances of a cone, whether inverted or not, whatsoever. Figures two and three U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,600, both top and bottom views are similar to my grip, but figure one, U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,600 confirms my uniquness and claims. U.S. Pat. No. 5,045,387 by Leake inventions seems to address job-site conditions, where moisture is present. It also shows handles on handheld tools that are tapered in some manner. It also shows recessed finger grips. Figure nine of U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,387 somewhat resembles a cone inverted. It shows the largest area and circumference at the opposite where it should be inverted to obtain my grip. The largest part of my invention is on the top, (thumb, forefinger), not the bottom by the pinky finger as shown in Figure nine. Figure twelve does show a tapered back to the grip. It also shows the front part of the grip with recessed fingertip contouring the same shape as the back. The area of the grip remains the same as it rises to the top, where it meets the shaft. This would not constitute a cone, whether inverted or not. Only with a cone, does the volume of area increase as the cone is viewed from point to outer circumference whether it is circular or elliptical. Figure twelve confirms this is not the case. Figure fourteen, U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,387 side view shows the front part of handle, with recessed finger grips on a flat plane until it rises to the top of the handle where it protrudes inward toward the contour of the back of the handle. There is no increase in volume of area as the handle rises toward the shaft. In this case, the handle and shaft are one. It is still in contrast to my invention. Once again, I believe by reading the context of U.S. Pat. No. 5,046,387, the handle is not the sole object for uniquness, but for its moisture resistances. The only similarity between my invention and U.S. Pat. No. 4,548,248 by Riemann would be the use of recessed fingertips. Other than that, there is no similarity between that invention and mine. By viewing figure one, U.S. Pat. No. 4,548,248; one can see no inverted cone shape whatsoever. U.S. Pat. No. 5,588,343 by Rust et al, also have no similarity to mine as being shaped entirely different then mine. The main objective of this invention seems to be with the tensile strength of synthetic materials used to combine the shaft to the handle.
The entire scope of this invention would be that by manipulating the hand into the most relaxed, yet secure position, the user of this invention would expend less energy to perform the task of striking motion. This is done by employing an inverted elliptical cone as the main member of the grip where the users pinky finger rests on the grip, which would be the smallest of the elliptical diameter. Where the users thumb and forefinger rest on the grip would be the largest of the elliptical diameter, these dimensions would manipulate the entire hand outward towards a more relaxed position rather then a so densed fist. By employing a gradual taper from one end of the grip to the other ensures a comfortable and secure grip without it feeling too bulky. It would be molded with recessed finger grips along the bottom of the grip.